Tag Archives: to do or not to do

“The fragile structure of logic fades and disappears against the emotional onslaught of hushed tone, a dramatic pause, and the soaring excitement of a verbal crescendo.”

——-

Bill Bernbach

=================

“It was the in-between time, before day leaves and night comes, a time I’ve never been partial to because of the sadness that lingers in the space between going and coming.”

——

Sue Monk Kidd

================

Ok.

Far too often when talking about pacing in life and business … we focus on ‘slowing down.’ We do that because we have convinced ourselves that not only is the world moving at a faster pace than ever before but that we actually have to move really fast or we are not doing something right.

I will not debate the sheer amount of shit we are faced with in any given moment but I would debate our concept of speed and moving fast and our unhealthy belief there is not enough time.

Not everything has to be done immediately.

Not everything should be done with minimal information.

Not every moment has some magical window of opportunity that we will miss out on if we do not act ‘now!’.

Now.

This is a little weird when we stop and think about it.

Facing reality, as an individual, it can appear like a speed boat … crashing through waves with any significant milestones flashing by so fast they become a blur.

Facing reality, collectively. It can appear like a fully loaded tanker … plowing its way through the waves where significance is measured, if significance is discernible at all, in broad sweeping miles of slow turns.

That’s life in a nutshell. That is time in a nutshell. That is reality in a nutshell.

Suffice it to say … reality can be a real bastard. Good leaders manage the bastard by managing the pacing of how we deal with all the bastard’s stuff.

Here is a truth.

The truth is that every good self-aware business leader has a panel in their head with a play, pause, rewind and fast forward button.

They have the ability to see things in real time … what has occurred up to that point and, in some way, can envision the ripples of what happens from there. Within that ability they decide to fast forward, or pause, or continue playing at the same speed … or even decide to rewind a little. They see reality and decide how to best take advantage of it.

Some leaders have one speed. There are some who we call ‘the bull in china shop’ asshats who only know forward at some fast speed bludgeoning and blustering their way forward. Some are like golf carts steadily chugging along at steady long play.

Good organizations have a variety of different types of employees but there is no good functional organization without leaders, or a great leader, with a ‘play/pause’ panel.

Here is another truth.

The other way a good leader uses their ‘play/pause’ panel is how they think about possibilities.

But we tend to make reality an even worse bastard. One thing we do that make reality worse is to convince ourselves that ‘the possibilities are infinite in any given moment.’

‘Infinite’ sounds good conceptually, as does possibilities, but when it comes to real pragmatic decision-making the entire idea tends to overwhelm & freeze rather than enhance efficient & effective decision-making.

The reality is that within any given moment possibilities are finite.

And the good leaders & managers recognize that. The great leaders and managers not only see finite possibilities but they see each possibility as a window … some wide open, some slightly cracked and some closed. And in any given moment they have the ability to consistently scan the finite possibilities with a finger poised over their play/pause/rewind/fast forward buttons.

That consistency is at the foundation of any good leader’s value.

Shit.

Consistency, in general, may have the highest value it has ever had in the history of Mankind.

Why?

Well.

Today’s world is structurally hostile to nuance. Subtlety not only doesn’t sell … it invokes ‘space’ in which others are more than willing to place something. I mention this because a play/pause panel is all about nuance within the complexity of reality.

It is easy to go one speed <or just stop when you get tired>. It takes touch and nuance to pause at the right time, rewind accordingly, fast forward through some difficulties or to take advantage of windows of opportunity or … well … just keep playing <which is sometime tougher than what you would think>.

This actually means great consistency is not about maintaining one speed but rather maintaining a consistent sense for how to adjust pacing accordingly.

This consistency is … well … complex. Business systems, more often than not, are a bit more complicated in their underlying dynamics than simplistic theory or simplistic diagrams attempting to create structure to an organization and its dynamics with the market & consumers/buyers/employees.

I would suggest that you cannot draw a picture for what is <because it is obsolete as soon as it is drawn> and you cannot draw a picture for what will be <because predicting multi-dimensional dynamics is outside the purview of reality>.

All that said.

That is why you cannot pay enough money to a business person who has the ability to know when to slow down to enable effective speeding up … or to pause to accept some responsibility <or explain> … or to fast forward at the right time.

That is why you cannot pay enough money to a business person who has the ability to stand still without really standing still. What I mean by that is the leader with a play/pause panel never really stands till <even though they may be pausing> because even a pause contains some activity and self-awareness to do something within that space.

===========

“She may be going to Hell, of course, but at least she isn’t standing still.”

–

e.e.cummings

===============

I talk about this entire topic often.

And it is a difficult thing to explain.

In our business world today we like to have simple formulas and handbook guides.

Pacing is more ‘feel’ and awareness and … well … yeah … some humility.

I say humility because no matter how good a leader you are and no matter how good your pacing is there will always be some issues <mostly because you get some things wrong>. Part of the ‘wrong’ portion is you inevitably leave some people behind and some ‘minds’ get a little scattered. And you have to get them back on track and aligned and sometimes you have to step up and show a little humanness and everyone resets when you do that, give you another chance and get a little re energized to pick up their bags and hit the road with you again.

Look.

Real play/pause management is midstream management and not in some grand 5 year, or annual, plan. Midstream where you have some critical learnings and maybe even some momentum or real shit hits the fan.

And you purposefully do not have everyone stop … just maybe pause … assess … kind of like having a fighter squadron get fuel in flight … and then fast forward on the mission.

I will say one thing about the proper use of pacing. Good pacing business management creates exponential dramatic speed increases … even if you pause, rewind or maintain the current play.

I feel confident saying that reality, occurring on its own, shows that these dramatic shifts don’t really happen as part of a business status quo. Dramatic business shifts are situational, contextual and often simply do not happen because a business doesn’t have a business person who sees it, senses it or can steer it … they don’t have a business person with a good play/paus panel.

It is a proven fact <I think> that pacing is one of the most effective tools an organization can wield to effectively run a successful business. I would also suggest that more often than not this pacing is not driven by the market, Reality, but rather driven by one person <or several> who have the ability to sense a contextual shift in the dynamics within a situation. A person who doesn’t have a picture drawn to adapt against but can draw a picture of what they see & sense from which others can leverage from to generate speed.

Not everyone can do this.

===============

John Coltrane: “I don’t know what it is. It seems like when I get going, I just don’t know how to stop.”

Miles Davis: “Why don’t you try taking the horn out of your mouth?”

==============

What I do know is that a leader who has only one speed and who claims ‘good business instincts’ when it is really only one speed is not a great leader, nor a good leader, but rather a one-trick pony <one speed> leader and they have a habit of making bad choices.

Suffice it to say … a one trick pony shouldn’t be a leader … it should be an employee.

“Debate is great for sharpening the mind, but I worry that really skilled debaters might internalize the idea that the point of discussion and debate is victory, rather than truth. In debate, if you encounter a compelling counterargument, you just try to find a way around it.

But you should argue for truth, not for victory.

Really good debaters run the risk of ignoring valid counterarguments.”

Let me be clear … if you suck at debating, you will be a sucky contrarian.

If you cannot debate you simply are an opinionated person with a non-mainstream point of view sitting angry in some office or at some desk thinking everyone is just not smart enough, and as smart as you, because they just can’t see what you see.

I have never had a desire to be angry nor staring at my own non-mainstream point of views piling up on my desk unused.

Next.

I am a self-proclaimed contrarian and … well … contrarians use truth … a lot.

Let me be clear … if you suck at telling the truth, clearly & concisely & unequivocally, you will be a sucky contrarian.

Truth is at the core of being a successful contrarian. Contrarians, simply by offering a contrary thought, find themselves constantly on the defensive defending the thought. This happens even if you go on the offensive. This happens because … well … contrary ideas & thoughts feel a little less comfortable, less familiar and more risky therefore people will inherently want to pick it apart. There is where ‘false’ haunts a contrarian. One falsehood is not just one falsehood. One falsehood implies others are there only yet to be found. If you cannot be an unequivocal truth teller you are simply a peddler of possibilities … and, well, true contrarians thrive on making possibilities realities.

I have never had a desire to be angry nor staring at my own non-mainstream hopeful possibilities piling up on my desk unused.

All that said.

When I saw the quote I opened with I had to sit back a little and think … think about how, as a contrarian, debate is used or not used.

Many contrarians focus on what I would call ‘the bookends’ — what their idea/thinking is and the ultimate outcomes — and judge themselves on that <and far too often dismiss counter thinking offered that changes the contrary thought>.

It is quite possible we contrarians <as well as many other people> should focus on ‘how they play the game’ … or how they debate … because I frankly don’t give a shit what you preach nor whether you eventually benefit from what you preach as long as what you preach is grounded in integrity & fair play & truth, what you actually do and how you behave is grounded in integrity & fair play & truth and what you preach isn’t just preaching but rather a thought which inspires additional thinking <which means the original thought will most likely look pretty different at the outcome than it did at the onset>.

If you do it right … if you debate it right … then you, and the idea itself, will benefit in that if the idea & thinking gets adopted in some form or fashion you will have done so as an outcome of what you preached, what you debated and how you behaved during the debate.

That seems like a good thing.

But here is where the opening quote really made me think … contrarianism is like a drug. When you have a contrarian idea and it is actually a good idea <and not all contrarians can tell if their idea is actually a good idea when being contrary> you can get caught up in the debate. You can start getting what I sometimes call “horizon blindness.” Horizon blindness is when you are so focused on the end destination and getting to the end destination you treat almost anything said, and any objection, as simply an obstacle to getting to the horizon … possibly ignoring any of the value being offered within the debate.

Even the best contrarians can get horizon blindness. Suffice it to say … the best contrarians can be aware of what is at exactly the same time as where they want to be. it permits some ‘cooperative arguments’ which <a> help build a better idea at the conclusion and <b> some ownership within all involved at the conclusion.

Anyway.

Here is what I think about being a great contrarian <maybe this is my wish list of what I could be>.

Scrupulously fair.

Contrarians have to walk a fine line. They rarely are flippant with a contrarian idea therefore can be dogged in its defense. Yet, they must be fair to the idea, the beauty of thinking itself and what others think & say.

In fact … you have to almost relentlessly be fair to everything else around you … scrupulously fair as a matter of fact.

Not domineering with beliefs.

This is a fine line to a contrarian. Frankly, any contrarian idea cannot step lightly into the fray. If it does it gets suffocated by the familiar, the status quo & the easier path. But the key word in what I suggested is “beliefs.” Any contrarian idea is constructed with a number of beliefs. The truth is that all beliefs reserve the right to not only be challenged but also changed. Therefore, dominating with a belief, in the contrarian world, is just asking for trouble … in addition … it is the wrong thing to do if you truly want the best idea at the end.

Cooperative argumentative dialogue.

The Socratic method <Socratic debateis a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions>. Every truly good contrarian I have ever met has been a master at the ongoing cooperative argument. They have been adaptive in debate, flexible in the flow and adept at finding seemingly irrelevant factoids and making them relevant at the appropriate moment.

Thinking tutor.

I want to be careful here because this is not to suggest contrarians are better thinkers or smarter thinkers and that they, and only they, can be the professors of thinking. What I am suggesting is that contrarians, in general, do think differently and they see things slightly differently. This means when you do it right … when you debate well & fairly & cooperatively … other people seem to walk away thinking about things in a slightly different way.

Relentless truth teller

One lie, one half truth, one ‘truthful hyperbole … and the whole house of cards tumbles down. Great contrarians are great pivoters away from what they do not know. what I mean is that instead of offering a ‘lie’ <falsehood> when faced with not knowing something they typically place an “I don’t know” on the table and pivot to a “but here is what I do know” and place a truth on the table where the “I don’t know” used to be. Key to what I just shared is a slavish attachment to truth … even at the expense of an “I don’t know.” contrarians realize the game being played is chess and you will sacrifice a piece rather than imperil the entire board.

That’s it.

When I saw the quote I opened with I loved the nuance in the description of debate … and made me think that maybe we, in business, misuse the concept. we may really debate in business … and maybe we shouldn’t be debating. Maybe we should be arguing for truth, not for victory.

“As humans, we tend to search for reassurance in all the wrong places.”

–

ke-ndallgrace

===============

“We believe in the wrong things. That’s what frustrates me the most. Not the lack of belief, but the belief in the wrong things.

You want meaning? Well, the meanings are out there. We’re just so damn good at reading them wrong.”

–

Rachel Cohn

=====================

So.

We make thousands of decisions every day.

Okay.

Let’s say thousands of little Life ones and maybe hundreds in the office throughout the work day.

Some of these are fairly inconsequential decisions and some are fairly consequential decisions <albeit telling which is which in the moment, while incredibly consequential, is incredibly difficult>.

What that all means is unless you are a completely narcissistic arrogant asshat you will end up seeking some reassurance at some point to make sure you aren’t a complete fuckup.

But let me go back to the thousands and hundreds.

Why?

That’s a lot.

What that means to most of us in that we do not seek reassurance on everything we elect to do but rather either <a> on things we deem extremely consequential or <b> random moments to serve as touchstones on some reality we are not a complete fuckup.

And what does that mean?

Well.

For the most part we will seek to find reassurance where we believe reassurance will be found. I imagine I could point out that is a slightly warped way to go about making sure you have actually made the right, or best, choice but I will not <because I believe everyone can recognize that>.

Regardless of whether this is the best way to seek reassurance … this is what most of us will do.

Sure.

On occasion you find a touchstone person who you think may offer a real touchstone and you seek them out on occasion – but even that is no guarantee.

Why?

They let you down.

Shit.

I am guilty of it.

Let’s say I have a hundred things to do and someone steps into my office and asks me what I think. My initial internal response is “not what I would do” but as that response weaves its way through all my other internal filters I kind of reach a conclusion that it doesn’t really affect me and maybe someone else will step in at some point and say “that’s kind of a bad idea.” So all I say is “sure” and move on to the next thing on my never-ending 100 to-do list.

Someone sought viable reassurance and I failed them <note: I, personally, try and remind myself that “37 seconds, well used, is a lifetime” as often as I can>.

All that said.

We tend to find reassurance in the wrong places — either from the wrong people or at the wrong time or even with the wrong intention.

I could point out here that the best judge of your own actions is yourself but I will not in this case because … well … reassurance is actually a good thing on occasion.

It really, honestly, can provide some honest-to-god reassurance you are not a fuck up <and this actually translates into better decision making in the future>.

We should all seek some reassurance at some point and … well … we do. I cannot offer much wisdom with regard to how to avoid seeking reassurance in the wrong places. The best I can do on that is just try and make sure you don’t always seek out people you know will give you the answer you want.

My real advice goes to all of us who provide reassurance <which, I assume, is pretty much everyone>.

Assume everyone seeks reassurance at some point them, well, at some point not only will you seek reassurance but someone will seek you out for reassurance.

Look.

I tell people all the time that decisions and choices are not really like crossroads where paths diverge but rather they are more like black holes. Almost every decision you make is like stepping into some form of black hole. You may be fairly sure about what resides on the other side of the black hole let alone what is actually in the black hole … but you cannot be 100% sure.

Let’s say your confidence, surety, is somewhere between 5% and 90% <and you try and avoid the 5%’s as often as you can>.

Uhm. That’s a big gap.

But that is what it is.

If you buy what I just offered you then you, as someone who provides reassurance, should be seeking to make the black hole as small as it can be.

==============

“This is the best of all things we can do for one another:

Make the dark small.”

–

Dean Koontz

===============

So while almost all of us will seek reassurance in the all the wrong places I imagine it is up to those of us who provide the reassurance to assume to some responsibility. The responsibility to actually make it the right place.

I am fairly sure someone is gonna send me a note and say that I am putting too much faith in people to do the right thing and care when they need to care and pay attention when they should pay attention and not be too much of asshat to always just push their own point of view … and they may be right.

But what I am 100% confident in is that 100% of us seek some reassurance at some point.

And I am fairly sure 100% of us would like the person providing the reassurance to have our welfare as their priority when providing the reassurance.

And, if that is so, I am fairly sure we understand the concept of we tend to get what we give.

“… is Donald Trump an intellectual?” Trust me. I’m like a smart person.”

——

Donald Trump at CIA

=====================

“Our brains are wired to reward us for talking about ourselves.

But droning on about yourself is a horrible way to make a good impression.”

—

Lydia Dishman

===================

So.

In my career I was never particularly good at ‘selling myself’ or ‘reporting on oneself’ as I am referring to it today. I always believed I shouldn’t have to talk about anything I had achieved … that the work, the thinking and the outcomes would speak for themselves.

From a career success standpoint that was most likely a significant flaw in my style.

From a business consultant standpoint that was most likely a significant plus in my thinking.

I don’t care who you are or what business you are in at some point someone better be talking about you. If they are not that means either you are a ‘nothing’ in the scheme of things or you are doing great things but doomed because no one knows.

That means at some point you have to get the word out.

That means every business, and every business leader, will sit down and say “I have all these things I want to say about myself/my business and I want to say them” – this could be to the general public, peers or even customers.

Now.

While I tend to think the whole concept of ‘the customer is king/queen’ is slightly misguided … at its most basic foundational core it simply suggests that if you aren’t paying attention to the customer and only paying attention to yourself you are not only implementing a narcissistic approach but one most likely doomed for failure.

But … in order to build value you have to often tell them some things about yourself and what you are doing <and not just in response to their questions or requests>.

In business you learn this lesson fairly fast <because to not do so can smack you in the face quickly> if you want to build value beyond ‘order taker.’

Dialogue, or at least some version of ‘listening & responding’ and “give & take”, is actually a fairly natural thing for us to do. Science says that humans, being social animals, are programmed to use communication as a vital tool to survive and thrive.

Uh oh.

But research also tells us something else.

Research also tells us that our favorite subject to discuss is … uhm … ourselves.

People spend 60% of their conversations talking about themselves

<80% when on social media>

The reason why is fairly understandable … it feels good <that is from real research not just my opinion>.

In fact … Harvard psychologists discovered that individuals were willing to give up money for the opportunity to talk about themselves.

Okay.

I tend to believe we all know that the ideal conversation should be a give and take where it is around a 50/50 split on words and sharing.

Uh oh.

The problem with that?

That not only means staying quiet half the time … but actually listening during that time.

That is a double whammy tough challenge for anyone.

But you know what?

If you have been in business for any amount of time you get it … you may not like it … it may not come naturally … but you understand it is a vital tool for being successful in business.

This all leads me to my topic today … how do you share news about yourself given all that I just said?

Most people understand this but, in terms of believability and building some ongoing ‘brand value’, it really does matter who says what.

I stated this in a white paper I wrote years ago:

And a quick note on Who has permission to say What.

The ability to make your brand a megaphone for this group of people is mostly about who you are as a brand already in their minds. A brand is a set of convictions that surround a product or service in the Consumer’s mind. These convictions are created through genuine involvement – a participation with this product or service either mentally or physically. Now, people like brands. They like having a comfortable relationship where there is a certain amount of trust. Maybe it is simply that with all the decisions we are forced to make every day it is nice to know there is one less decision to be made.

Because of this relationship a consumer has with a brand there are some things a brand just cannot say. Or I imagine they can say anything they want, but as in any relationship, they need to understand the repercussions of that communication. Just like a husband telling his wife “you look fat” (and the response that generates) as well as a wife telling a husband “you are mentally disturbed” (and what makes you credible to tell me that!) there are ranges of things a brand can tell the consumer and be credible.

Pushing, lecturing or forcing are rarely effective no matter the relationship but even more so when the brand – consumer relationship is suspect (or unclear).

=====================

Suffice it to say … when you decide to report on some shit you have done you also have acknowledge that everybody carries around a set of perceptions about you <whether you are a brand or not>.

What I mean by that is the moment I stand up in front of people almost everyone in the room will be filtering through what they know about me, what they think about me and what they may be open to believing about me.

That’s just the way it is <whether you like it or not>.

I say that because if you want to report on how you are doing and what you are doing … well … you have to think about how to go about doing it. And, no, it is not a easy as stepping up in front of people and just reporting.

I would suggest there are basically three avenues with regard to who is going to say what you want to not only say … but what will actually be heard.

Offer the news yourself <giving yourself credit>.

This is the worst option. This offers the narrowest path to successfully communicating anything good about yourself.

Too humble and it sounds disingenuous, possibly that you are hiding something, sometimes suggests there is nothing to say or simply doesn’t offer enough detail to make what you say meaningful.

Most of us who have had some success in business believe no one can explain what we have done better than ourselves. We would, 99% of the time, be wrong.

Before his Oval Office meeting with Theresa May, Friday morning began with a tweet – the @Potus account used to quote himself, with an embedded video of himself, while citing his own personal Twitter account.

Tooting your own horn, giving yourself credit … no matter how humble you try and spin it … will most likely earn, at best, 50% of the true value of the achievement. Yeah. I just made that formula up … but it sound about right.

Truth & candor is elusive on this path — even if you are truly speaking truth with candor. Everything you say about yourself, through your own mouth, immediately gets filtered thru a colander of skepticism. If you don’t realize that by the time you have hit middle management you are either clueless or you don’t care.

Have someone who obviously works for you offer the news <and credit you>.

This is semi-effective. Significantly better than standing up and saying it yourself but when delivered by a paid employee it is always viewed thru a cynical filter. Listeners will be skeptical but dialogue, questions & answers, can truly make or break this avenue.

That doesn’t mean it cannot be effective and, in fact, if you have a fabulous authentic spokesperson this can be a gangbuster way of sharing news.

Truth and candor wins the day for you on this. If your spokesperson is elusive or has a dubious relationship with truth you are screwed. If your spokesperson is credible, truthful and authentic … your wins will be lauded as wins and your losses/mistakes will be viewed more favorably <you earn points for the attempt>.

Say nothing yourself, have your people say nothing <or little> and have a 3rd party offer the news <and credit you>.

This is the most credible and, frankly, the most truthful if you are seeking to know how you are doing as a leader. Unsolicited credit is the most powerful. This is tricky because if not encouraged there is only silence. Too much encouragement and it appears to be biased or “paid for” endorsements. But nothing makes you more credible, your achievements more valued and your thinking more appreciated than if someone, unsolicited, gives you credit.

Ok.

Moving on.

Look.

Leaders, if they are worth half a shit, always question themselves and maybe even encounter a sliver of self-doubt on occasion. And depending on your personality you will manage those feelings in a variety of ways. Overall, more often than not, a leader will err on the side of defending their character, decisions and direction like they are in a cage match. Uhm. Not a lot of listening but rather aggressive “telling what you know about you, your character, your decision and your direction.”

In doing this it is always tempting to create a ‘majority’ in your head which supports whatever you report about yourself <mostly because most good sane business people really do think fairly rigorously about the shit they do> but unless you are a deaf bombastic asshole … you know that the majority of people will have at least a sliver of questioning with regard to whatever you say and do.

And even then … even if you fuck up the whole “let me share some news about myself and why I know what I am doing and why I am great” stuff … typically most business people recognize that they … well … have to recognize the listener … have to recognize the receiver of this self-reporting.

Now.

If you actually have some listeners you need to recognize that you have … most sane business leaders always remember to 100% avoid two things:

“I don’t have respect for you” attitude.

If you are a sales person who has been promoted, you almost always respect the sales department more and the accounting department with … well … less respect. Or maybe the legal or HR department isn’t your favorite. Well. It doesn’t matter. You manage them all. Agree or disagree your job as a leader is to get everyone in line and going in the right direction at the fastest effective pace. Simply saying “go” just doesn’t hack it. And not respecting other departments, or anyone for that matter, doesn’t really help you communicate what may be important to you <because if they do not feel important they will treat you & your words similarly – not important>.

“You need me more than I need you” attitude.

Great leaders never tangibly communicate a symbiotic relationship but the net response for what they state suggests a positive symbiotic relationship. That said. A sociologist named Charles Derber identified something called Conversational Narcissism.

Conversational Narcissism suggests that the speaker elevates themselves to a place wherein they are at the top of the hierarchy <however hierarchy is defined>. “The best schools” and “the best teachers” and self-proclaimed “very intelligent” and having one of “the best IQs” would be some of the signs. Attitudinally this suggests they need you more than you need them.

Well.

Every business person with half a brain knows, whether they like it or not, they need all those people to make it all happen and work and create the desired outcomes. No man is an island. We need people.

Diminishing those you are going to need is never a particularly good strategy.

============

It’s dangerous talking about yourself too much because you find yourself talking in sound bites.

—-

Emily Mortimer

=============

Anyway.

People, in general, are skeptical of progress and success until it is not only apparent but has been established <so they know it is going to stay in some form or fashion>. They feel exactly the same way about your achievements. I mention that because the timing of communicating achievements matters.

Unfortunately, in business, there are times when you want to announce a win or success or achievement faster than you really should because it seems like “we need a win.” Don’t do it.

Here is a business truth.

Success and achievements are like all those pistons and hoses and mumbo jumbo under the hood of your car. If your car is tuned up and working the way it should the car goes, gets you where it should go and maybe even gets you their faster than some other people on occasion. Personally I believe in reporting on oneself you should never refer to oneself … always refer to the car. Because if the car is doing what it needs to do enough … well … you are gonna get some credit at some point.

By the way … if you are a business leader and a lot of what I shared today is news to you … well … you are either clueless or you don’t care.

“Celebrity is the chastisement of merit and the punishment of talent.”

―

Emily Dickinson

============

Celebrities almost seem like they can’t win.

If they are smart, they get dismissed as some airhead out of touch overpaid cretin.

If they are silent, people wonder why they don’t use their situation to further some causes.

Even if they are not so smart and sincerely make an effort to do the right things and stand up for the right things, they are called disingenuous & hypocrites.

Sigh.

How unfortunate.

Maybe it’s because throughout my college years I rubbed elbows with dozens and dozens of musicians, athletes, actors and ‘stars’ in Los Angeles that I have never really understood the whole star struck thing … just as I have never really understood the dismissal thing.

…… dispersion of general population/people ……..

I have always found them to be … well … people. I have found them to be representative of the general ‘intellectual to idiot’ dispersion of the total population – for every one intellectual there would most likely be two idiots <and the bulk lying somewhere in between>.

I have found them delightful, disappointing, dicks, charming, offensive, insightful, vapid and interested in only their craft as well as interested in everything.

Basically they are you & I with a different career.

That said.

When a celebrity speaks I listen … just as I do with everyone else.

If they have something meaningful to say … I appreciate it <do not dismiss it>.

If they have only meaningless drivel to say, I ignore it <but I don’t damn the entire celebrity world for one cretin’s words>.

I say all that because when celebrities get it right … they really get it right.

And I think that is because of who they are and what they do and where they are <in a brighter spotlight than most of us will ever encounter>.

Let me share two completely different “got it so right I wish I could shake their hands.”

First.

Harry Styles. One of the boys in the boy band One Direction. Embarrassingly I couldn’t have told you which one he was until I googled him.

But now I got him pictured.

Anyway.

He is doing a solo album and he was asked if he feels any pressure to cater his solo career to an older, more adult crowd rather than to the typical One Direction young female audience.

Who’s to say that young girls who like pop music – short for popular, right? – have worse musical taste than a 30-year-old hipster guy?

<the second quote is spectacular … the kind of thing we wish all our 20something sons would say>

He is 23. He has been wildly globally popular since he was 17. He has more money than 99% of us will ever see. And he got it right. He got it right twice in one interview.

I won’t buy his album <nor any One Direction albums> but I will most likely listen to him a little more closely in the future.

We should wish all our young men had such a good role model.

Second.

David K. Harbour. He is in some show named Stranger Things which I have no clue what it is about but was embarrassed to find out that I have actually used some gifs in some of my posts from the show itself.

Anyway.

He gave a fairly passionate speech at some awards show right after the first Trump travel ban announcement.

========================

No society, not even one as rich and fortunate as the United States has been, is guaranteed a successful future. When early Americans wrote things like “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” they did not do so to provide bromides for future bumper stickers. They lived in a world in which authoritarian rule was the norm, in which rulers habitually claimed the powers and assets of the state as their own personal property.

“I would just like to say, in light of all that’s going on in the world today, it’s difficult to celebrate the already celebrated Stranger Things, but this award from you who take your craft seriously and earnestly believe, like me, that great acting can change the world is a call to arms from our fellow craftsmen and women to go deeper. And through our art to battle against fear, self-centeredness and exclusivity of our predominately narcissistic culture and through our craft to cultivate a more empathetic and understanding society by revealing intimate truths that serve as a forceful reminder to folks that when they feel broken and afraid and tired they are not alone.

We are united in that we are all human beings and we are all together on this horrible, painful, joyous, exciting and mysterious ride that is being alive.

Now, as we act in the continuing narrative of ‘Stranger Things,’ we 1983 midwesterners will repel bullies. We will shelter freaks and outcasts, those who have no home. We will get past the lies. We will hunt monsters and when we are at a loss amidst the hypocrisy and the casual violence of certain individuals and institutions, we will, as per Chief Jim Hopper, punch some people in the face when they seek to destroy the weak and the disenfranchised and the marginalized. And we will do it all with soul, with heart, and with joy. We thank you for this responsibility.

Thank you.”

——

Stranger Things acceptance Speech

===============

First.

Spectacular. And spectacularly right on all issues.

Second.

But what puts this one on the Bruce “celebrity got it right’ list is the fact he wove in all the regular hollow snide remarks we make about his industry within his speech … acknowledging what he is part of and all the while acknowledging what any moral, ethical, upstanding American citizen should feel & believe.

It wasn’t preaching but rather explaining the issue and how his career and industry can impact the issue. And you know what?

By doing that he permitted people who actually listened to think for a minute …. “hmmmmmmmmmm … why couldn’t I do that also?”

I seriously doubt I will ever watch Stranger Things but he reminded me I shouldn’t tune out a celebrity, an actor or actress, an athlete or any ‘star’ because … well … sometimes they get it right.

===============

“We humans are naturally disposed to worship gods and heroes, to build our pantheons and valhallas. I would rather see that impulse directed into the adoration of daft singers, thicko footballers and air-headed screen actors than into the veneration of dogmatic zealots, fanatical preachers, militant politicians and rabid cultural commentators.”

“Emptiness which is conceptually liable to be mistaken for sheer nothingness is in fact the reservoir of infinite possibilities.”

——-

D.T. Suzuki

=====================

“When one gets quiet, then something wakes up inside one, something happy and quiet like the stars.”

———

W. B. Yeats

==============

So.

In my last piece “to do or not to do” I offered my personal view that “I am a harsh judge on motivation for a decision” and someone asked me about that.

Well.

To begin on decision motivation I would suggest that great decision making is about emptying the mind.

And, no, I am not talking about stilling the mind or even uncluttering the mind … in this case it about emptying the mind of egoist <what will feed my self belief> & appearances <what will look good> & appeal <what will gain approval> type stuff.

That said.

Contrary to popular opinion being a business leader is partially a popularity contest … and, thankfully, partially not. Your popularity matters in that if you are not liked at all no one wants to follow your leadership. But making business decisions should never, okay, rarely, be dictated by what would make you popular.

Therefore a business leader has to recognize the delineation in their mind as they ponder decisions.

In business you, of course, have to be watching employee ‘approval’ surveys and organizational cues with regard to happiness, optimism & confidence but you have to purposefully empty your mind of all that stuff when it comes to a business decision – in particular on bigger decisions.

Any leader with half a brain knows they must avoid reckless decisions and ineffective energy-sucking initiatives that do little but make people feel good about themselves in the moment.

Any leader with half a brain knows that a bad decision piled on top of another bad decision only deepens a precarious situation and increases the odds you get the business in a situation that has no viable path up & out of it … let alone even create a scenario in which there is actually a viable idea on how to end the slide down <this is a recognition that decisions are not transactional but rather mutually inclusive of each other>.

But that is where emptying the mind matters.

The brain has to be empty of popularity or ‘what will look good’ or any egoist aspect <like “will I look strong/decisive/smart/etc.> which inevitably try and pry their way into your thinking process.

Yeah.

Sure.

Optics matter.

It sucks.

But they do.

But you have to set them aside for a bit.

Because by emptying the mind you clear away the crap in order to see the ‘right decision to make’ regardless of optics, popularity or likeability.

Okay. If optics & popularity really do matter <like I said upfront> than why do you do that?

Because the truth is that once I have the right thing to do I can dress it up in some snazzy outfit to make it, optically, look more popular and likeable.

And any business leader with half a brain can do that.

And all this leads me back to my point about judging business leaders based on their motivation.

First.

If a leader feels boxed in … squeezed into having to make a decision … well … there is no real ‘box’ except in that persons’ head. That is a truth. Optically, from the outside looking in, people can construe a box and the leader may mentally say “shit, I am in a box of my own making and I have to do something” but I struggle to find a situation like this in which you actually have to do something. The optics may not look so fantastic and you may take a hit on popularity but any leader worth half a shit knows that any box that can be built can be unbuilt.

I judge harshly those who decide believing they are in a box they cannot unmake.

Second.

Ego. Well. Let’s just say that any business leader worth half a shit has some ego. They have to. It’s part of what makes them feel confident enough to do a job which the majority of people would hesitate to do. And with ego comes along some nasty side effects – how do people feel about me and see me.

The good business leaders take what I just wrote and make it “how do people feel about my decisions and see my decision.” They stop worrying about “me” and worry more about “my decision.”

I judge harshly those who decide believing “feel about me & see me” is any part of their decision.

Now.

This motivation is a tricky judgement and, as I noted in ‘to do or not do’, you cannot judge the decision because it is what it is … but should focus on the pre-decision & the post-decision behavior in order to best assess & judge motivation <albeit if you have a history of decisions made, a pattern, you can assess the ‘pre’ fairly accurately>.

Post decision behavior is typically incredibly enlightening.

Say for example approval is important. If that is the case then a decision rewarded with greater approval will most likely encourage future decisions.

Or maybe someone wants to look strong. If their decision is rewarded with feedback of “strength” you can almost begin expecting more of those types of decisions.

Or maybe it is likeability. If their decision is rewarded with “happier people” you can start expecting more decisions that facilitate that response.

I imagine my point here is that evaluating motivation begins and ends with an evaluation of the relationship between the words & the actions. An action can look appealing but you have to lay the words alongside and do a match. For it is within the gaps & the connections in which you can get a sense of the motivation.

You can absolutely get a sense for motivational decision cues by how a business leader describes a decision they made. Oftentimes a leader will use the words they want to hear or are important to them in how they describe what they decided … “we needed to show a sign of strength and, therefore, we decided to do ‘x’.”

That kind of crap.

Words used over and over again are the words they will incorporate into motivations for a specific decision.

To be clear.

This ability to empty the mind is not easy. And its difficulty will vary by who you are – the narcissists never can and the humble will almost always.

But the truly good business decision makers … the ones who make the best decisions … the right decisions <as in “doing the right thing”> … will always be able to empty the mind.

They will always be able to clear the bad motivations and see their way to the ‘right’ objective driven motivations.

And, philosophically, I have always liked the leaders who are able to empty the mind to make decisions because … well … they are the ones most likely to see the stars too.

“There are tiresome people who say that if you ever find yourself in a difficult situation, you should stop and figure out the right thing to do.

But there are times in this harum-scarum world when figuring out the right thing to do is quite simple, but doing the right thing is simply impossible, and then you must dosomething else.”

—

Lemony Snicket

================

“She wasn’t doing a thing that I could see, except standing there, leaning on the balcony railing, holding the universe together.”

–

J.D. Salinger

====================

Ok.

To do or not to do is the question.

That is a question a business leader gets faced with on almost a daily basis … certainly on a weekly basis.

Now.

Not all “do’s” are created equal … particularly if your job is to hold the universe together. And, frankly, that is what a leader of a larger business organization does … holds the universe together.

That universe has multiple layers … the business itself is at the core <because without the business the rest is irrelevant>, the employees … as well as the greater universe which I will call ‘the industry’ <because your decisions either make the universe stronger or break it apart in some way>.

And I bring up the universe because that is what doing versus not doing is all about. Doing, or not doing, sends out a ripple which impacts the greater universe and, often, it is difficult to envision how the universe will react.

Yeah.

That is a fairly important point to ‘decision second guessers.’ Ripples and difficult to envision. Second guessers tend to focus on ‘cause & affect’ criticism … linear relationships.

I rarely debate what some business leader actually does because, frankly, the decision itself is almost the least important aspect … it is most likely what comes next that matters – how you adapt to what the universe does in response to your decision & action.

However.

I do watch very closely as to how a business leader makes a choice because context, and reaction to the context, matters <and we all face this when stressed under a do-or-not-do decision>.

The biggest sign to watch for is ‘the use of simple equivalency on nuanced complex issues.’

Because if you see it … well … it is kind of a defense mechanism to a very stressful decision.

Universe impacting choices kind of put a leader in a corner. They get squeezed.

Personally, I do not like squeezed situation decisions. And I really don’t like when business leaders feel like they HAVE to make a decision simply because they are in a squeezed situation <especially if they themselves created the squeeze>.

I am fairly harsh in my judgement with leaders who offer the simplistic “I did this because of this” simplicity and suggest a simplistic ‘we will be better off because of this’ but I will be less harsh on the decision itself.

I believe all of that is fair because the situation in which the decision is made is fair game but decisions are decisions and, whatever the situation, once the die are cast the die are cast.

Look.

First & foremost I am an unequivocal do the right thing person.

And the thought of not doing the right thing galls me … makes me shiver to the core.

Sure.

From a realistic point of view that doesn’t mean I always do the right thing … just that first & foremost I begin with decision making from a what the right thing to do place.

And before anyone throws out the infamous ‘how can you know the right thing to do?’ I would suggest that maybe 98.863718% of the time … figuring out the right thing to do is quite simple.

But, yes, sometimes … doing the right thing is simply impossible.

Huh? How is that possible? Oh. That universe thing.

When you are holding the universe together there are easy moral decisions, there are easy right decisions … but it is never easy to see how they will always affect the universe and more often than not actually doing the right thing is a combination of luck and ability to adapt.

Sigh.

Having made some of these types of decisions myself I find second guessing these decisions tiresome.

I am more than willing to judge the motivations behind the decisions. I am more than willing to judge how a leader responds to what happens when the universe responds. But I am always hesitant if not refuse to judge the decision itself.

Ok.

That said.

While I believe the universe, in general, is indifferent to our fate … I do believe the universe has a nasty habit of responding to us when we actually try to make something happen to our fate <like a business leader making a decision>.

To be clear.

If you do nothing … you will gain nothing.

Actually.

If you do nothing you will get less than nothing. Mostly because the universe is … well … indifferent. It will not pay attention to you unless you pay attention to it <because it is far too busy focusing on those who have done something to make the universe break apart in some way>.

I say that because I think some people believe if they knew there would be no consequences for their actions they would lead a fuller life. They would have the courage to do more and take some chances.

Maybe have the courage to let themselves go forward.

And they do nothing because they fear the consequences.

They have forgotten that the Universe is indifferent.

And there is the tricky thing about the Universe.

It is kind of a trap for a business leader.

Doing more, taking some chances, and even simply making decisions, means more responsibility for actions.

It is simple math.

The more you ‘do’ the more shit you can be blamed for … or … given credit for or even have to actually do to react & adapt <there is a ratio relationship to a choice in that 1 decision can beget 10 necessary actions/decisions in response to the universe’s response>.

Well.

Here is where I come back to motivation for the decision and being in a squeezed situation.

In today’s world if it doesn’t appear like you are doing something … then … well … damn it … you aren’t doing something.

You have to be doing something that can be seen.

Because if you don’t everyone is convinced you are doing nothing.

I call it being challenged by the ‘outcome mentality’ and, as a business leader, this is a headwind you face every morning you walk into the office.

That headwind constantly blows in the belief that outcome, or output, is everything.

That’s not really truth …. But let’s assume for here that output is truly all that matters <note: that was extremely painful for me to type>.

So what if your output is … well … holding the universe together.

Sometimes you run across that leader … or sometimes a manager … or a young employee <with the potential to do so> who holds the business or the organization together … but sometimes when you look you cannot see what they are actually doing. They may be often seen doing nothing but standing there leaning on the balcony rail.

Uh oh.

In today’s business world that person is screwed.

Look.

I’m not suggesting you want people who do nothing … but sometimes people who look like they are doing nothing are actually doing a lot of something.

And sometimes it is difficult to measure these people up against ‘outcome focused generators’ and particularly difficult to measure from outside a C-level perspective <employees and those looking at you without direct relationship>.

What I mean by that is I have had people in my teams where during review time I have had to stack employees and justify their salary, job status, existence within the organization, whatever review line item you want to call it … based on ‘what have they done’, i.e., tangible outcome crap.

And … well … sometimes your most valuable employee doesn’t look so hot based on sheer tangible outcome. It is only when you build in intangibles that they rise above the tangible outputters <not sure that is a word>.

I note that example because holding the universe together is a particular intangible talent … and one that demands a massive strength of character.

I bring up character because that is at the heart & soul of ‘to do or not to do.’

I do get a little concerned that the business world pendulum has swung so far over to outcome & output that those who ‘hold the universe together’ is becoming a dying breed. Maybe I am less concerned for the immediate … but over time. Because the young people with this talent and ability simply cannot protect themselves from an output world without help. And if all we do in business is to promote outputters … well … enough said.

You get it.

Anyway.

To do or not to do.

That is the question every business leader faces … all … the … frickin … time.

And while I imagine we should judge them based on whether they did or didn’t do … I would suggest I am more interested in judging business leaders on ‘the decisions after the decision.’ Frankly, that is what defines a great business leader for a couple of reasons:

Decisions are rarely one-and-done.

Decisions impact the universe … and with many unintended consequences. And your job is to hold the universe together. Which means you have to keep an eye on the consequences of your decision … all the time.

Decisions accumulate.

Remember the ‘keep an eye on the consequences’? well. One decision begets 10 different consequences all of which may need a specific response/decision. Uh oh. And you make one of these decisions every day … maybe every week … yikes … every week I have to try and keep a finger on the pulse of a universe in which I am now pondering hundreds of different consequences. A decision does not, okay, rarely, makes something go away. Which means every week your particular universe gets larger and larger.

All that said.

And that is why ‘to do or not to do’ decision should never be made flippantly or for self-purposes … because the larger decisions are more about the universe than they are about the leader themselves. I judge motivations, and we all should, but once a decision is made the die is cast and you begin judging on how a leader responds to how the universe responds.

“The trick to negotiation was to hold all the cards going in and, even if you didn’t, to try to look as though you did.”

―

Eoin Colfer

==================

Well.

I was embarrassed this week.

I was also mortified this week.

I have run companies.

I have managed large groups of people.

I have met some of the best CEO’s imaginable.

I have discussed large organization culture, behavior alignment and strategic positioning.

I have been involved in some fairly complex and contentious multi-million dollar business negotiations.

I have seen some bad … and mostly have seen some good.

But what I have seen , 99% of time, were crafty negotiators and solid negotiation skills where a ‘win’ was always sought and an understanding that the other side also needs some version of their ‘win’ in order to have both sides walk away from the table invested enough to insure an ongoing successful deal.

That said.

I was embarrassed to see how Donald J Trump showed an America, whose population mostly does not have my experiences, what ‘negotiating’ looked like.

I was mortified to think that America, who watched Donald J Trump as the healthcare ‘art of the deal’ negotiator, would start thinking that is how business is conducted at the C-level in business.

Frankly, after that performance I could see how any everyday schmuck sitting in some bar drinking a cold one could envision that everyday schmucks were negotiating and managing and leading the everyday large business direction.

I was embarrassed and mortified because this is not the way a real CEO negotiates and makes a deal.

I was embarrassed … and I imagine a shitload business people, better than I am, were also embarrassed.

While he showcased a laundry list of embarrassing attitudes with regard to how negotiating should occur, there were probably two aspects which were particularly heinous:

Carrot and stick.

As soon as I see these words I think “old school 70’s thinker.” It is this simplistic tripe which makes today’s CEO … well … puke. It suggests you can bribe through some false incentivizing or bully through some sense of ‘threatening.’

Today’s business people can see through the ‘incentivizing’ and realize that a bribe is a bribe and the ‘incentive’ is a short term salve at best. Short term is for short term thinkers. Good negotiators think short term behavior is lazy <as well as dangerous> and that short term wins have little to no value.

As for threats?

Today’s business people see it and say “fuck you.” Threats provide clarity and inspire clarity to the one threatened. In today’s world a threat empowers the one receiving the threat. Maybe

In the 70’s this may have worked <although I doubt it> but in today’s world this isn’t negotiating … it simplistic bluster.

Look.

You can be tough in making a deal but bullying is never a viable tactic.

You can compromise in making a deal but ‘bribing’ is a fool’s errand.

Words matter.

Words matter maybe more than almost anything else and to believe that a word is simply a word and that a meeting of the minds resides solely in the words said … is … well … the thinking of an idiot <if not a naïve idiot>.

===========

“We’re fascinated by the words–but where we meet is in the silence behind them.”

―

Ram Dass

============

Attention to <at least some> details.

Whew.

Let’s be clear.

When you become a leader you know you cannot know everything.

Let’s be clear.

When you become a leader you know you cannot delegate everything <including knowledge>.

And that is where good negotiating resides … in how you resolve those two things at the same time.

You hire departments head, division presidents and specialists to know more than you do on their responsibility. But you have to know enough about what they do and what their knowledge is in order to be able to negotiate not only decisions but to manage the people in negotiation, and the discussions that occur, effectively.

Delegating all detail is fraught with peril and will never … NEVER … translate well into effective negotiating.

But let me point out the three unintended consequences of not investing yourself into the details as a negotiator:

I care.

Without knowledge of details … well … it looks like you don’t care … or at least care as much as most of the other people around the negotiating table. Negotiating is always a dance between showing what you are negotiating is important but not so important that you could walk away. And that is where knowledge of detail gives you some breathing room with your attitude. Lots of detail shows lots of caring … which permits you to be … well … an asshole on occasion. You look like a competent asshole who actually cares about what is being negotiated. Without detail? You are just an asshole.

I am personally invested.

Without knowledge of details it looks like you are skating on the superficial surface of whatever needs to be done. Suffice it to say that if there is no personal investment in a negotiation it can only be about price <or result … not what makes up the result>. This is exactly like a value equation. Personal investment adds value to the negotiation … no investment … no value. And, yes, you can win a negotiation and actually have little or no value beyond “I won.”

I can negotiate fairly <without hollow promises>.

Without knowledge of details all you end up doing is saying what people want to hear, make promises you most likely have no right promising and ultimately … well … you cannot negotiate shit.

Negotiating is never about the win or the loss itself but rather the components of the win or loss. Negotiating is like building a big puzzle … and if you do not understand the pieces then the puzzle will never look right and often never gets completed.

Lastly.

What makes great negotiators great negotiators is consistent personal responsibility. That is at their core because great negotiations revolve around some semblance of trust — trust of each other with a win and trust of each other in loss. Great negotiators know that negotiating is not a transactional career … it is an ongoing resume of activity. The chain of activity <and the value you have earned as a negotiator> is broken the moment the negotiator doesn’t assume personal responsibility for the good & the bad.

Donald J Trump solidified my embarrassment last Friday when he said … “I would love to see it <Affordable Healthcare> do well, but it can’t.”

Donald J Trump is basically suggesting he is willing to fuck America.

Great negotiators don’t take their ball and go home if they lose. Rarely is a negotiation the final word on anything. And it is certainly not the final act in the negotiated play.

In fact … both the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign proposed a slate of improvements <some of which Republicans actually like> to alleviate some of the affordability issues.

This would suggest “it can.”

And this would also suggest that of a negotiator said “it can’t” then … well … they were either not negotiating or they shouldn’t have been involved in the negotiation.

Oh.

And if Donald J Trump was actually a good negotiator he would already know that the bill he was “100% supporting” actually has some of these components within it.

I was embarrassed by the so called ‘negotiating’ and the ‘art of the deal’ ineptness. I have read the Art of the Deal and it is like The Secret <another heinous excuse of a life/business guidance book> for negotiating – scraps of good ideas typically amplified into some tritisms and the rest bullshit.

………. mortified and embarrassed by Trump so-called negotiating ………

I was embarrassed as a business guy watching a business guy being so inept at a moment in which we demand competency.

And I am now mortified that our so-called President & negotiator ‘par excellence’ would not want to proactively help Americans.

To be clear <attention Donald J Trump> … our national health plan is no long Obamacare … it is simply our health insurance system <of which he is responsible for>.

You know.

I believe in some hybrid version of universal healthcare in America <a hybrid system because America is not Europe and we have always created a solid capitalistic-socially beneficial system when driven to do so>.

I do so not because I am European, a bleeding heart liberal, a socialist or even because I believe it is the right of everyone to have healthcare but rather because I have run a company.

A healthy employee base is happier, shows up more often <less absenteeism>, is more energetic and, ultimately, more productive.

I have to envision the same logic applies to a citizenry <and add in the component that a healthier unemployed base is more likely to become employed … and a healthier poverty base is more likely to get out of poverty>.

Yes. These are not empathetic reasons … these are pragmatic reasons. These aren’t some simplistic “insurance will be cheaper and everyone will have it and we will not let people die on the streets” type reasons. This is about opportunity, equality and productivity. This is about maximizing the productivity of America.

It would seem to me that our so-called business President would recognize that all his job promises and economic growth promises and even his empty promises to the poor and inner cities would be more likely to succeed and the people able to contribute if they were happy and healthy.

Our current health care plan is far from perfect … but fixable.

Our current President is even farther from perfect … and I am not sure he is fixable.

All I really know is that this past week what America saw as “how great negotiating is done” is not how 99% of senior business people negotiate. It is much better than that.

It was embarrassing to watch.

======

Postscript:

While I do not support a full ‘repeal & replace’ option I do understand what the true supporters <the ones who want to create a policy not simply make a political point> desire. If I were a business president who actually liked winning and proof of results here is what I would have done:

I would have shown everyone my desired end state of the market, services provided and what people would have.

I would have then made a full repeal of Affordable Healthcare Act. 100%. Immediate. Now.

I would have created a 2 year transition plan to show how I would bridge where we are now and where we want to go and insure people would not be ‘left behind’ but offered a path across the bridge.

I would have created all the backroom deals with the insurance companies and laws to insure everyone knew the rules of engagement and rules of desired results <and shred some of that with the people so that insurance companies also assumed some responsibility>.

I would have stated that my plan was to have everyone off that bridge in two years, and in the 4th year of my administration we would report on the state of the market, state of the services provided and a report card on how well insurance companies had fulfilled their responsibilities to the people.

“At any given point you have the power to say, this is not how the story is going to end.”

–

Anonymous

==================

Well.

I sometimes believe one of the toughest games we play in life is the tug of war between reaching and settling.

Shit.

We do it on business all the time.

“What is our reach goal? … okay … let’s make it a little more realistic.”

Uhm.

Is that a reach goal or a settling goal?

Every day and in almost every situation not only are you mentally, as an individual, assessing ‘reach’ versus ‘more certain attainment’ <which is an evil version of settling> but everyone around you is sending conflicting signals – we want to reach a little farther than we think we are capable of … oh … but not too far.

WTF.

You either reach far or you don’t.

You either set a settling goal or you don’t.

But, for fuck’s sake, don’t make my head hurt more than it has to on some decisions and choices because you want to feel like ‘we have pushed the limits’ in some false way.

Look.

I’m not suggesting this is easy. Our natural temptation is to settle for a little less than a true reach because then we are more likely to meet expectations and less likely to be disappointed. I would guess <no research to back this up> we settle in some form or fashion 90% of the time.

And I really cannot argue with doing shit this way.

It is simply a tactic to maintain our sanity as we attempt, in reaching our desires & dreams, to limit the roll of the dice between chance & choice. We do so because we know disappointment lurks around every corner of every choice we ever make.

And, let’s be honest, the disappointment can show up in so many frickin’ ways it almost seems like meeting a reach expectation comes only in black & white … while disappointments can show up in a myriad of colors <a reverse of how it should and actually is>.

I would like to note here that it really doesn’t help that we constantly get crap advice like this: ‘I encourage people to create something that ONLY you understand. That ONLY you get, because that can make you feel like you have some sort of purpose.’

I absolutely buy the fact a reach goal should be personal or at least contain some aspect of personal so that it just isn’t some bland milestone objective someone else has pointed you at.

But.

Well.

If you are gonna reach for something, truly reach, part of the prize at the end of the reaching isn’t holding something that only you ‘get’ but rather something you have gained that others also see value in.

You want something that … well … covers you in colors that others can see.

==============

“And now I’m covered in the colors”

—-

Halsey

==================

And maybe that is where settling really screws us.

We don’t reach far enough to access the true colors to cover our achievements in to make it worth looking at over and over again.

Regardless.

We live in an achievement and outcomes world.

While we talk a good game with regard to good character and humanity and ‘purpose driven’ passions … almost within the first 5 minutes of any discussion you are gonna get “what do you do” and “what have you done.”

If all you can do is talk about “reaching shit” then … well … you are useless as a non-achieving dreamer.

But.

If you can point out a string of specific outcomes and achievements most people don’t ask or wonder if they were easily attainable or the fact you attained them was because you had ‘settled for something less than a reach’ … all they do is think of you as a useful achieving productive person.

And therein lies the horrible fate of ‘reaching.’

While we hate the fact that meeting the expectations of others means something … well … it means something.

We can try to live a Life not worrying about other people and their expectations but unless our ‘doing compass’ miraculously always points us in the right direction and … well … unless our ‘reach’ is impeccably judged correctly every time and … well … unless the cat’s cradle web of choice & chance happens to fall into perfect symmetry … well … we are doomed to have to face someone’s expectations at some point.

=============

“It’s time for you to live your own life without worrying about the expectations of others.”

–

Unknown

============

Every day we get tugged side to side … reach or settle.

Every.

Frickin.

Day.

Here is what I know.

If you settle for everything, your story will be illustrated in the blacks & whites of certainties, achievements and outcomes. You will try and color the black & whites in some odd colors to spruce them yup but … sigh … they are black & white.

If you never reach for anything, you will end you story with chapters of regrets and ‘’what ifs.’ You will have touched only grays and your access to ‘colors’ will be limited.

If you reach for something and fall short you story will have two key chapters … the first is one filled with the failure to reach & the disappointments … the second is written by how you react to the reach disappointment – avoid future disappointment or seek to try & do better.

If you reach for something, and get it, well … you will never be the same again. You will have touched colors and seen that life is much more than black and white.

Please.

Don’t anyone read anything too much into the ‘what I know’ portion because while the last one I wrote sounds exactly like what everyone wants … there are no guarantees in Life.

Reaching comes with a cost.

Settling comes with a cost.

And sometimes the cost is not dictated by you but rather by some choice & chance metric <which you have little control over>. And sometimes the prize, the benefit, can only be seen by you <a different version of cost>.

I imagine all I really know for sure is that, in general, we settle for far too little far too often.

“Some people think they have discernment when actually they are just suspicious.

Suspicion comes out of the unrenewed mind; discernment comes out of the renewed spirit.”

―

Joyce Meyer

===========

“Distrust is like a vicious fire that keeps going and going, even put out, it will reignite itself, devouring the good with the bad, and still feeding on empty.”

―

Anthony Liccione

================

“So it is with minds. Unless you keep them busy with some definite subject that will bridle and control them, they throw themselves in disorder hither and yon in the vague field of imagination … and there is no mad or idle fancy that they do not bring forth in the agitation.”

―

Michel de Montaigne

=============

Suspicion is the nefarious agent sneaking around our house trying to break in.

Now.

I am not above being suspicious of a variety of things and a variety of situations.

However.

Suspicion of guilt.

Suspicion of rigged.

Suspicion of … well … something happening beyond your control.

Suspicion that some cabal running the world.

Suspicion that some coworker talking behind your back.

Suspicion that some thing, or things, constantly working in the background keeping you from getting to where you believe you should be able to go.

Suspicion that something is going on that you cannot ever see or hear … you just ‘know’ it is so.

Suffice it to say … suspicion is an insidious little bastard which is far too comfortable on the couch in your mind.

Suspicion sips from a cup holding little evidence.

Some may just have some ‘gut feeling’ <another insidiously mostly wrong aspect of ourselves called ‘instinct’ – more often wrong than right> and some may tenaciously hold on to some minor subtle aspect of Life as proof of suspicion.

Where suspicion is truly insidious is in its success rate. While suspicion is, generally speaking, right maybe less than 10% of the time … that 10% increases the overall feeling ALL the time of … that everything merits suspicion … and that insidious little bastard keeps whispering in your head … “it could be’.

Look.

A society, and the individuals who make up that society, really only have one of two choices.

“A little bit of suspicion is a dangerous thing; a drop from a pipette of poison into a bucket of otherwise clean water.”

―

Bella Pollen

===============

I am not suggesting blind naiveté. But I am suggesting that living Life suspicious of everything sounds like a fucking miserable Life. Not just a life threaded with perpetual dissatisfaction but a Life grounded in overall distrust of anyone and anything.

That, my friends, sounds fucking miserable.

Oh.

And I don’t buy the is part of the whole bullshit point of … “well, this is just part of growing up.”

That is complete and utter bullshit.

It is a bullshit excuse to take the easy way out.

A society based on trust and innocence before guilt is hard. It is difficult. And it is fraught with peril and the possibility of disappointment.

But what a dark and sad world if we view the alternative. What a miserable view of Life if we cock our head askance and think of everything as untrustworthy or guilty of everything <or something>.

Suspicion is poison.

It is poison to joy, to a fuller Life, to the possibilities of unfettered trust met and unfettered over delivered expectations <rather than lowered bars of trust and expectations being met>.

======

“That was when it was all made painfully clear to me. When you are a child, there is joy. There is laughter. And most of all, there is trust. Trust in your fellows. When you are an adult…then comes suspicion, hatred, and fear. If children ran the world, it would be a place of eternal bliss and cheer. Adults run the world; and there is war, and enmity, and destruction unending. Adults who take charge of things muck them up, and then produce a new generation of children and say, “The children are the hope of the future.”

And they are right.

Children are the hope of the future. But adults are the damnation of the present, and children become adults as surely as adults become worm food.

Adults are the death of hope.”

―

Peter David

===============

And here is where that nefarious agent really is sneaky. Research certainly shows that, for the most part, people tend to be fairly trusting. But suspicion is sneaking into our overall trusting nature. It is kind of like building a trap door … directly under where you are standing.

This means you view the world with eyes desiring to trust but are grounded on suspicion. That means you inevitably question everything before trusting or deciding on innocence. That means we don’t really trust and believe innocence first … we view suspiciously before attaching the positives.

Here is the major problem with that.

Research also shows that suspicious people are NOT better at reading the situation properly. That is because suspicious people are, overall, just more negative/cynical therefore they are more likely to notice problems WHEN they really exist but attach problems more often when they do NOT exist.

On the other hand … trusting people tend to see the truth better than suspicious people <and a little slower on recognizing the lies>.

My real point?

Research states that neither the trusting nor the suspicious are particularly good at reading the situation … just biased in different directions.

The truth is that accurately detecting deception isn’t based on any skill. It is based on making the right guess.

Trusting people are better at spotting the truth.

Suspicious people are better at spotting lies.

Look.

I would suggest that being ridiculously good at living Life means setting suspicion off to the side and approach things and people with a trusting attitude.

Why?

Well.

The easiest answer is that you will have a tendency to attract trustworthy people. Good people, trustworthy people, like to be trusted and not have to prove their trustworthiness. It gets tiring to address unmerited suspicions.

The other reason?

Time and time again … if you truly look at Life in a black & white way <not rise colored glasses> you will find little evidence for true institutional corruption or something that merits suspicion.

The other way for me to suggest we view this … is to examine the places in which there are the highest levels of suspicion … and where you will find little truth worthy of suspicion, mostly just speculation <or “smoke” as some people call it> and no real fires.

In fact … it is more likely our suspicion creates what it suspects <similar to see what we want to see> then it actually uncovers anything.

But, you know what?

Who cares?

Yeah.

I know.

Someone will immediately send me an email talking about my naiveté and point out dozens of example for which suspicion actually had some merit.

That is not the point.

Nowhere in a true democracy and in a society in which we are reliant upon “we” doing shit together is there room for a relentless thread of suspicion.

It becomes an agent of … “not doing.”

For where is the motivation to do shit … let alone trust the “we” to get shit done if you are constantly suspicious of some nebulous ‘we’?

“In a big democracy like this, a diverse country like this, it all comes down to what the people say,” Obama recently said “our democracy doesn’t work if we spend all our time just demonizing one another. Progress requires compromise, even when you’re right, but we should try to conduct ourselves with basic honesty and decency and big-heartedness.”

Uhm.

That sounds good, doesn’t it?

And … well … nowhere in there did I see the word “suspicion.”

Aw.

This isn’t about the election and this isn’t about any particular candidate nor is this about any particular person or situation.

This is more about what I wrote in ‘innocent until proven guilty.’

In this case it is ‘trust before suspicion.’

Life isn’t about “I” … inevitably it is about “we.”

And “we” doesn’t exist … well … certainly doesn’t exist as a viable productively efficient and effective “we” … if it is constantly barraged by suspicion.

We all … society as a whole … needs to get our shit together with regard to suspicion. We need to deport the nefarious agents so that we can work together with some healthy trust that we can get shit done with some compromise, a lot of hard work … and … well … a good healthy attitude toward each other.